(MOSCOW) – Russian newspapers are presenting the conflict involving Iran as an opportunity for Moscow to strengthen its global influence, raise energy revenues and benefit from shifts in international markets.
Several Russian publications have argued that the war could divert United States political and military attention away from Ukraine. The commentary also claims the crisis could strain Western resources that currently support Kyiv.
One headline in the Moscow newspaper Moskovski describes what it calls “Putin’s Iranian chance”. The article argues that the conflict with Iran, which US President Donald Trump expected would be quick and decisive, could instead become a major drain on American resources.
According to the commentary, the crisis could become a “black hole” forcing Washington to concentrate political, military and economic efforts in the Middle East.
The paper also argues that Ukraine’s leadership is aware of the risks created by the escalation. It claims that if the conflict continues, Europe, described as Kyiv’s main supporter, may have fewer resources and less political willingness to sustain assistance to Ukraine.
Another report highlights rising global oil prices as a key consequence of the crisis. Russian commentators argue that higher prices could significantly benefit Moscow’s economy.
The reports refer to Iran’s blockade of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which they claim has removed up to ten percent of daily global oil supply from the market. The disruption has pushed prices higher and created favourable conditions for major exporters.
The Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda writes that the energy crisis strengthens Russia’s role as one of the world’s largest oil suppliers. The paper suggests that the United States recognises this influence.
According to the report, Washington may seek to avoid a direct confrontation with Moscow in order to preserve the possibility of future agreements over the Middle East crisis.
Russian state publication Gazeta also points to broader economic effects from the escalation around Iran. The paper says global food markets are already showing signs of disruption.
A key concern is the potential interruption of fertiliser shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a route used for a large share of the world’s agrochemical trade.
In this scenario Russian analysts argue that Moscow could gain from higher prices for fertiliser and food. They say Russia could also expand its presence in markets previously served by suppliers from the Middle East.
Some Russian commentators have also used the crisis to analyse political leadership in the United States. One commentary argues that President Trump may have fallen into a common historical pattern associated with highly centralised systems of power.
The writer states that such systems can lead leaders to rely on a narrow circle of advisers and believe strongly in their own judgement.
The article says, “He comes to believe in his own genius. Those around him say only what he wants to hear. He takes a decision in a narrow circle of one or two trusted persons. As a result the blitzkrieg scenario did not work.”
The commentary argues that the Iranian government did not collapse after the first military strikes as some supporters of the campaign expected.
Russian analysts also warned against assuming that sanctions pressure on Moscow will quickly weaken.
One commentator said that the recent thirty day waiver allowing limited purchases of sanctioned Russian oil should not be seen as a major shift in policy.
The writer said, “We should not delude ourselves that sanctions may soon be lifted. This is not a lifting of all the restrictions including the full embargo on Russian oil by G7 countries.”
Alongside the geopolitical analysis, Russian media also revisited the legacy of the Soviet Union.
This week marks the 35 year anniversary of the 1991 referendum in which almost 75 percent of Soviet citizens voted to preserve the Soviet Union.
Despite the vote, the state collapsed later that year when the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords, formally dissolving the USSR.
A Russian lawyer writing in Moskovski argues that the referendum still has legal relevance.
He said, “The results of a referendum cannot be cancelled and do not lose legal force. Referendum decisions do not have a statute of limitations.”
The lawyer concluded that the Soviet Union remains politically significant.
“The USSR and the referendum on preserving it remain a factor in current politics. The results of the referendum of March 17 1991 remain in force. So the USSR is alive, not only in our hearts.”
